A chalky sugary candy heart soul mate is probably better than a human one in a number of ways.
But I’m already surrounded by eight of them.
Is this all I post anymore? Meh. Let’s get to it.
Ever think about what pop culture tells us is or isn’t inherently attractive? Some ad for a dating app had, as an example of a “bad” date, some guy saying “let me tell you about my cat!” The ad implies this guy is a loser for wanting to talk cat rather than, well, the ad doesn’t really specify what actually is the “correct” thing to talk about. Also, for the record, and I’m definitely not alone on this, whether you’re a date or friend or coworker or whoever, yes, please DO tell me about your cat! And your dog and bird and fish and iguana. I want to hear about your pets. It’s probably the most delightful and inoffensive topic, and it tells a lot about a person. In fact, if you’re put off by pet talk, well, fuck off.
The other thing is back when Friends was on. It’s interesting watching the series and seeing as the show stated so authoritatively what traits or even interests were inherent turn offs. Or, at least, by sitcom dating standards, where someone could have ten sexual partners in a year and still be considered sexually unlucky. Specifically, Ross was pegged as undesirable because he was a paleontologist (despite getting married three times, because, again, sitcom logic), that anyone into science or who is geeky at all is Forever Alone. In one episode, he and Chandler are going over things about themselves that put girls off, and he mentions that “girls don’t like it when I talk about science”. And, like, dude, then you’re dating the wrong girls (and erasing female scientists). Seriously, he should have married Julie and told Rachel to fuck off, and she him, since they were presented as each other’s “lobster” and yet they did not actually get one another in any sense. Though, shit, could write a book about all the toxic messaging in that show.
But it’s not just a sitcom that, wow, is pushing twenty years since it ended (on my 21st birthday…). Certainly the Forever Alone geek remains an annoying trope. But that comes from the same thing. A geek is really just interested in something strongly. It’s part of who they are. If that’s inherently unattractive, then it follows being one’s whole self is what’s unattractive.
It’s of course a load of shit. Truth is, when you’re truly into someone, on the contrary, someone going on about their pets or their interest in dinosaurs or what have you, seeing them get all excited and animated about it, is goddamn spectacular. You don’t even have to be that interested in whatever it is. Just seeing someone you care about get into their zone is what’s amazing. If that’s a turn off, then what the fuck is wrong with you?
Of course, I haven’t even touched on other prevalent forms of wider society dictating attractiveness, namely setting beauty standards that require being thin and white. Still all bullshit. You’re dating a person, not a color or shape.
I like to think this has improved over the years, that despite bad pop culture messages about attractiveness, real people are seeing the bullshit for what it is. Maybe one could say I’m just here in my late thirties looking back at the messages absorbed when I was younger and maturing beyond it or something. But among those seeing through the bullshit are today’s teens. And I’m living today as well, if a bit older. So the shift is perhaps a maturation of society rather than the person.
My teenage years, after all, were when Friends was running.
Know what else has been around a while?
U R 2 CUTE
So does that mean the cute is doubled? Is it quantifiable?
Okay, great. So I used to have a big fluffy collie named- Hey, where are you going, candy heart?